Ninjaprime
Regular
PhysX - Dead.
Image Qual - Debateable.
Drivers - Debateable.
Fame - Yeah, mostly this one.
AMD: Sea Islands R1100 (8*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
PhysX - Dead.
Image Qual - Debateable.
Drivers - Debateable.
Fame - Yeah, mostly this one.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
I expected you would mention CUDA, 'cos I see people in other forums claiming they prefer NV because Adobe Reader, Photoshop, Premiere, InDesign, After Effects don't support hardware GPU acceleration when an AMD GPU is present in the system, and in this case completely relies on CPU execution...
You mentioned Image quality. Do you have some elaboration on it, some links to compare, etc?
You mentioned Image quality. Do you have some elaboration on it, some links to compare, etc?
Except that this isn't true at all.
Only Premiere Pro CS5(.x) was CUDA accelerated partly, CS6 brought OpenCL option too (first on Macs only, apparently later it's been added to PC side too via patches but couldn't find 100% confirmation)
The rest of the apps are OpenGL, OpenCL or not accelerated at all.
DavidGraham
Veteran
I listed some of the reasons why people would prefer NVIDIA , doesn't necessarily mean these are my reasons or the absolute truth , if you are going to debate opinions , take it elsewhere .
I listed specific features , Google NVIDIA ambient occlusion and TXAA and see for yourself.
The GHz edition is not "the factory overclocked model", and frankly if we're talking about day 1 drivers then both lag behind in the games where the other has had more pre-launch access.
No because there are other reasons for why money comes in that don't include discrete gpu, which is what we are discussing here. Oh btw you might want to note that revenue is down ~$200 million on the past few years as well.
Yes and I'm pretty sure they also had their worst market share loss in history in the same time. As you well know, this is down to other factors like console money (and they did do pretty well in the first couple of quarters while Nvidia was nowhere to be seen), but in the last two quarters they leaked a huge amount of market share and currently look to be in a very bad situation as regards discrete gpu.
Last edited by a moderator:
DuckThor Evil
Legend
What is it then? Same chip with upped voltage and frequenzy.
Care to name these other reasons? Is it surprising that revenue is down, when the lower range is pretty much gone from the GPU segment. Still the revenue is much higher than few years ago.
Is it surprising to lose market share when the competitor actually gets its lineup to the stores? I'd like to see Q4 2012 vs 2011 comparison, not within a year when the other player released their parts much later. In any case I don't think AMD's graphic division is doing that badly.
Power consumption and Noise levels not to forget. There are way more near silent 680/670 designs than 7970 GEs.
DavidGraham
Veteran
That too ..
Nvidias TWIMTBP program along with online presence (not going to open this can of worms) has done tremendously for them.
Ati was never able to compete with them on it. Eventually, they grabbed consumer mindshare which inevitably leads to market share. Ati simply could not play the game well enough.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Thank you for the clarification.
I was sure that this was the case as you described it.
The point is that people are so stupid and ignorant that they have such opinions and that obviously makes a terrible impact on AMD.
So, how to fight it?
Go and explain to them, and they jump on top of your head that NV is the better... Ridiculous.
I only have a sample size of two games, but 3D has worked fine for me with AMD. I haven't looked at an in depth comparison, but I suspect most of Nvidia's perceived superiority is good will from driving the market in the early days.
In general I agree with this post, but I would be surprised if someone was able to say the actual brand name influenced their feelings. I don't perceive either GeForce are Radeon to be great or terrible and they've been around long enough that they are familiar.
I have to disagree here. During uncertain times like this (with next gen consoles around the corner) it should bring some level of concern how things will unfold on the PC gaming front when spending that kind of money for a video card.
For example, this article regarding directx development be it true or false should bring some caution during uncertain times. Another is something we all have to ask ourselves. Would the gaming market be better with just console gaming all together? Is this what organizations would like consolidated? If that's remotely something of consideration is it necessary to continue paying $300, $400 or $500+ for a video card when it's unclear regarding future A-AAA title games?
Last edited by a moderator:
Everytime I mention geforce someone refers to a hamster movie. Perhaps hamster power is driving the NV brand.
Or they think about this universal force called gravity.
At least it resonates.
And the movie was reasonably entertaining.
NV's support for 3d is far better than AMD's. For a start they don't rely on 3rd party middleware to make it work and they maintain a proper compatibility list on their website.
I'm not sure how the final implementation compares but I certainly don't see any "HD3D Ready" games around but there are plenty "3D Vision Ready" games.
Plus there's the fact that NV have their own specialised hardware for the job. 3D Vision 2 with lightboost is particularly impressive.
Personally I used to go where the performace was, be that NV or ATI but moving forwards I wouldnt even consider an AMD GPU unless I saw some clear evidence that their 3D implementation was on par with 3D vision.
Smart vsync is another one as well. Having said that though, the only two advantages that would have a significant effect on my purchasing decision would be 3d support and physX (which features in the recent Batman Arkane City for example).
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Deus Ex: HR is one of the available HD3D games.
As for 3D quality. The only place where I've seen an extensive heads up basically said that 3D quality was relatively similar for Nvidia and ATI. With a slight nod going to Nvidia. Both vendor's cards did well on some titles and not so well on other titles in roughly equal ratio. Those titles awhere Nvidia did well didn't always do well on ATI hardware and vice versa. But there were titles that also worked equally well on both vendor's cards.
Basically it boiled down to being a relative crapshoot as to whether a game would work well in 3D or not and which vendor's hardware would do a better job with presenting the game in 3D without artifacts or errors.
BTW - the slight nod to Nvidia was due almost entirely to it not needing a 3rd party driver for most games. But they did note that for best results it's recommended to use a 3rd party driver as well as the Nvidia provided one. Since those allowed some games to display correctly in 3D or gave a better 3D experience compared to Nvidia's own implementation.
Regards,
SB
Svensk Viking
Regular
Probably ain't a big feature for guys on forums such as these, but it must be pretty neat for those still having a Geforce 6 series GPU that they have official support for Windows 8.
Nvidia recently dropped their support for their DX9 cards, whereas AMD's DX10 cards are now on legacy support.
Yeah I've just read the write up at Toms Hardware. Is that the one you mean? I must admit it looks like AMD have a better solution than I had thought now. Virtual 3d mode sounds like a great option, I'd like to see NV implement something like that to deal with some of the incompatible games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I don't think it was Tom's Hardware. I'll have to jump over there and check. The one I read basically looked at Nvidia and AMD as well as both 3rd party 3D video driver solutions on both Nvidia and AMD hardware. iZ3D and the other one that I can't remember.
[edit] Just took a look and that wasn't the one. I can't remember what site it was now, it was one a friend of mine linked me to about a year or so ago I think.
Regards,
SB
Similar threads
